First of all it now appears that neither Sony nor Nintendo are going to "allow" a game with an "Adults Only" rating to be published on their consoles: BBC News. Normally this would have me running around in circles while flailing my arms around screaming "Censor Nazis!!!" at the top of my lungs … but since it is Manhunt 2 we're talking about I can only shrug since Rockstar brought this on themselves.

Of course it also means that both Sony and Nintendo have confirmed the perception that their consoles are for kids but that is a tale for another day …

I actually played the first Manhunt. I wanted to see what all the fuss was about yet at the same time I didn't want to fund Rockstar in any way so I "acquired" my copy … through other channels. The sad thing really is that if you siphon out all the excess violence then the basic gameplay isn't even half bad. The sneaking around, observing the guards' patrol routes, taking out those that can't be avoided and circumventing the rest is pretty well done in Manhunt. However, the 3 levels of violence/gore that most weapons had depending on how long you "primed" the attack was put in the game for shock value. Nothing more and nothing less. I've seen a lot of blood and gore in my time, both in games and in movies, but some of the "execution styles" in Manhunt could even make MY stomach turn and that says a lot.

— "Chess in particular had always annoyed him. It was the dumb way the pawns went off and slaughtered their fellow pawns while the kings lounged about doing nothing that always got to him; if only the pawns united, maybe talked the rooks around, the whole board could've been a republic in a dozen moves."- Commander Vimes in Thud! by Terry Pratchett

Gamespot's video review by Greg Kasavin said pretty much the same thing, that the stealth action and gameplay was pretty good, but that the gore would be a little too much for those sensitive to such things. They gave it an 8.3. In the review I saw some of the kills played out, and they do look pretty nasty!

Regardless, I ordered it off Amazon, I'll give it a whirl and see for myself what all this hubbub is about.

— I dont dislike people - I just like them better when theyre not around

Oh goodie more censorship. Ok I understand that Manhunt 2 is really violent but if you don't like it then don't buy the dang thing. Also where is this line in the sand? Why isn't Silent Hill or other overly bloody games banned? I for one can't stand Silent Hill and won't buy another one but that doesn't mean I want to take the game away from other people. When did people just decide that governments knows what is best for them and say "ohh ok you want to take away more of my rights to use my higher brain functions to actually make my own decisions? No problem, here I'll go sit in the corner and wait for you to tell me what I should do."
They're doing this in the good ol' USA and now the disease has spread to the UK.

Just to clarify, I won't be buying this game due to the fact that I don't really care for excessive use of violence 'the whole using pliars on someones groin doesn't really apeal to my gaming needs' but don't take away my choice as to whether I want to buy this game or not, the people are not 2 year olds that need the government to hand feed them what to say and do.

It's not censorship. It's called "drawing the line." What if a game came out where the object was to kill babies or rape little children? Should that be allowed? There has to be a line drawn somewhere as to what should be allowed and what shouldn't. And don't mention movies. You don't control the action in a movie. You simply watch.

To be honest, I simply don't get the fascination with gore in games OR movies. It adds absolutely nothing to gameplay. Like when Sacred first game out. The US version had gore removed. People were bitching. I have both versions. I will admit there was no reason to remove the gore because it WAS minor, but at the same time I saw no reason for it to be in the game to begin with. It did nothing as far as gameplay, which is all I care about. And the scariest movies I ever saw did not show the actual killing. It left it up to your imagination.

What they should have done was told Rockstar to tone down the gore in order for them to allow the game. If Rockstar refused, then ban it. That's my opinion anyways.

There isnt going to be some Xbox or PC game where the object is to "kill babies or rape little children", so just dont even bother with such a hilarious statement. Reminds me of someone I was having a free speech argument with who asked me as their zinger "well what if Hitler wanted to be the commencement speaker at a Jewish college?". It isnt going to happen. It's stupid to even say it, so just stop it already.

The difference between "drawing a line" and censorship is what? It's when people who are doing the censoring think that their opinion is supreme. If blood adds nothing to a game, if it truly means nothing, then what are you all up in arms about? You just dont think it's anything worthy, but some people would say the same thing for pixel shaders, or shadows, or whatever. Living beings bleed when punctured in some fashion, that's called realism.

So some shooter or action games where you can run around and shoot 3d models with a gun, or attack them with a sword or crowbar or something are just fine, that's what confuses me. Just dont go too far and hack or blow the head off a certain type of 3d model or kill it in a certain way, or even wipe out a smaller 3d model than the approved size.

We should just check the ID's of all 3d models in game first, to make sure that they are all at least 18 years of age before being shot, sliced, or stabbed? Limbs can be blown off, just as long as it's not that realistic? Yet "Gibs" are fine, you can blow people to a huge pile of flesh as in the Quakes or Soldier of Fortune? That's better than stabbing someone in the neck with a syringe?

I'm just saying, it's funny that we can have some games where 3D models are literally shot, blown to pieces, etc, but it's OK because it's an approved 3d model and method of execution. Violence is violence, if you call for one to be outlawed you should by all rights call for all games where violence is featured, whether by gun or blade, to be outlawed.

— I dont dislike people - I just like them better when theyre not around

Last edited by xSamhainx; June 23rd, 2007 at 12:00.
Reason: -edited rambling post,

Originally Posted by Icefire
It's not censorship. It's called "drawing the line."

I my world drawing a line is something *I* can do. I can make statement like for instance: "I will not have to filth in my house". When you presume to "draw the line" on the behalf of others it is called censorship.

So yes, it is indeed censorship.

Originally Posted by Icefire
To be honest, I simply don't get the fascination with gore in games OR movies.

And that is an opinion that you are most welcome to have but when/if you try to "force" that opinion on others, whether they agree or not, you are enforcing censorship.

— "Chess in particular had always annoyed him. It was the dumb way the pawns went off and slaughtered their fellow pawns while the kings lounged about doing nothing that always got to him; if only the pawns united, maybe talked the rooks around, the whole board could've been a republic in a dozen moves."- Commander Vimes in Thud! by Terry Pratchett

Some time ago (&#189; a year ago, I think) I watched a movie called 'the interpretator'.
In one of the movies first scenes, you see someone getting shot - by some one who says 'say hello' to the teacher'. What shocked me and me 'verstimmt' (is the German word, sorry, I don't know the English?) was that the shooter —— was a boy
of maybe 1o or 12 years of age.

If they've made the Interpretattor into a movie, should they've keep this scene. I would vote for yes, without it you can't understand the backstory or the plot of the movie.

I also watched just recently a very interesting and fascinating Japanese movie, called Casshern. (you should rent it some time). In this movie, you see soldiers shooting small children and innocent women and men. If this game were to be made into a game, I'd still vore for this to in the game, since it is a defining moment for the whole film as well as for the film's plot & story as well.

Most games let you have the option to kill the small children or not, to rape someone or not. That's is what free choice is about in games. Most games like Fallout and Baldur's Gate will inflict severe punishments on you, if & when you either kill innocents or children in the game. [In Icewind Dale, I think, you have the option to kill children at some point during the game, but expect to be severely punished by the game if you do…]. Games let people have the freedom to what they want do during the course of the game, do I kill the children and excepts the punishments for it, or don't I kill the children here, so that I more easily can finish the game.

I read somewhere (maybe in the thread about at the BGSF forums?) that the BBFC actually did a study in this. Contrary to popular belief you get more emotional upset when you watch something 'bad' happening in a movie than when you plat a game, including Manhunt 2. My guess would be that in a game you have the feeeling of the actions, and if you've done something that maybe ended poorly, you can either re-load an earlier save, or just try to iron out your mistakes as you finish the game.

I disagree with the ban. It will just make the game more interesting and Rockstar games might just sell quite a few thousands games more because of this banning the game thing. I don't disagree with the rating of AO, though, or the PEGI rating of 18+ . Interesting, isn't it? How both Sony & Nintendo seems to be happy with the 18+ from PEGI, but unhappy with the same rating from the ESRB? (which probably have more to with that on a certain level in the game you're passing tvs that basically show porn videos rather than the violence in the game). AO is equal to 18+ from PEGI, the only real difference being that major retailers like Walmart etc. won't be carrying 18+ games in the US, while they will do this in the PEGI countries in Europe.

I don't feel (or need) the state to tell me (a 43 year old adult male) what I can or can't buy, watch, see or listen in terms of books, movies, games and televisions shows. I'm all for (harsh) censorships when it comes to kids, since I believe that kids should be protected as much as possible from seeing violence etc. both in games and in in real life. I'm also a very staunch defender of free speech and that everyone has the right to make the books, movies, television shows and games that they want to make.

If I don't want to buy a game, I don't buy. If I don't wan't to ren't a movie, I don't rent it. You and I have every to say that we don't want to this kind of game or that kind of movie in our home or house. We don't have the right to say, on behalf of other people, that they should be banned (or barred) from getting this game or that book or this movie, if they want to do it. Especially not, when they are adults, and by that I mean over the legal age of 18. Not you, nor the state, nor anyone, should decide what is appropriate for me as an adult to watch, read or play.

Regarding the Manhunt 2 game, if you go to ign, and do some searching, you will find a very fine article describing the gameplay in Manhunt 2 in depth. When you read it, you will see that it's really not so much about shooting/popping people down than the media says it is; it is more or horror survival game like Condemned, where you need to hide in shadowows, use your cunningness, and your stealth, along with your intelligence - to silently sneak out of the Asylum.

Of course, the mental patients as well as the wards are going to be come after you. The shock, awe and horror effect lies in the fact that they too are lurking in the shadows - waiting for you. So the whole scary bleek feeling really only plays out in your mind, ffrom you watching the surroundings an the atmophere in this game. And that is something younger kids don't understand. Adults do. And that's why I am happy with the 18+ PEGI rating for Manhunt 2.

Manhunt 2 is a game I won't be getting, but I couldn't dream of telling other adults not to get the game, if they wanted to get it.

My biggest problem with censorship is that it draws people who might never know about it to something they are only getting into because of the notoriety. It's the same thing as "making a martyr" out of some murdering scum during a war by torturing him and shooting him at sunrise: you give his self-serving actions a higher significance by the outrage with which you suppress them.

Thought control leads to the very things it tries to eradicate—as people's natural tendency is to fight against being controlled. Unfortunately, they way it operates, it makes the wrong things important for all the wrong reasons.

Without this ban, most people would probably not give this game a second thought, let alone buy it for what it actually has to offer.

wow aries, crazy long post dude! ='.'=
Even tho I'm wondering what game youre referring to when you say:

Most games let you have the option to kill the small children or not, to rape someone or not.

Most games? this has to be a typo, for I can think of one game that you can actually shoot kids in cold blood, and that's Fallout. But rape?? I'm scratching my head here over that one.

But yes magerette, notoriety is definitely one of Rockstar's main ingredients, and it's one of the main ones that keeps people buying their games. I think it's half the reason Marilyn Manson ever went platinum. Not saying that MM has no good stuff, but he most likely wouldnt have been noticed at all in the first place. There's things that bother me sometimes. I didnt buy San Andreas for example because I really dislike the "ghetto" motif, thus it would prolly irritate me the entire time I'd play it. So, I didnt buy it.

But the notoriety just in this thread worked on Manhunt, just grabbed my copy outta the mailbox a few mins ago! Just what I need, another game…

— I dont dislike people - I just like them better when theyre not around

When I write most games, I mean to say that in most games, the gameplay is that you decide whether or not you would kill children or rape someone for instance or not. I don't mean this (even now) as all games have this feature, but that most games let you decide what you want to do in the game, of course limited by the game's story and plot.

In Icewind Dale, and I think Baldur's Gate, too, you can kill children of you want. You can do the same in Fallout. You can, of course, choose not do this. The point I was trying to make is that in most games, be they rpgs, horror games, and even in some adventure games like Phantasmagoria etc. you can choose whether or not you will be 'bad' or 'good'.

The point being that the rape comment was meant as a sort of answer to the comment of game in which you could rape say women or children. I just meant to show you that if there indeed was such a game, you would probably also have the ability NOT to rape women or children, just as you have the ability (or possibility?) not to kill children in Fallout, BG, or Icewind Dale.

The point of my (rather ) long post was also to support those who say that games need to grow up and become cultural products like books, movies and television shows. And that it is (high) time that society starts viewing
games this way.